I am very new to this community and this is my first post (so go easy on me).
You all know of the recent fatal fall from Angels Landing. There was a similar tragedy on the Half Dome cables in Yosemite last week (see this link for details and discussion: http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/N umber/36486/page/1#Post36486 )
This has me thinking about via ferrata. Would it not make sense to convert the cabling systems in these kinds of trails to a via ferrata and require the use of harnesses and slings? On these trails where there are already cables/chains it would not be the same as bolting up a pristine environment, just an improvement of the system.
Are there other trails that require infrastructure like this to maintain the illusion of safety?
Glenn
A.J.
> Now here is an explanation I can relate to. Thanks AJ.
My pleasure.
> What exists already is a sort of via ferrata. Could it be used with > a harness and tether for my nine yr old? I’ll get to see it in > person in a couple of weeks. I’ll let you know.
From my recollection, the cables are pretty thick; thus you would need a very large locking biner, or other similar system to go around the cables. They could certainly lock onto the poles coming out of the ground which hold the cables up; but are certainly not engineered to do so. With the Via Ferrata routes, many have handlines (cables/rails) as well as the safety cable that you attach your tethers to. Not saying you couldn’t rig something, but that isn’t what it was designed for. You will likely find that by holding the cable, and standing on the wood slats, that you feel comfortable enough. Your son is a completely different story. Not having any background on him, can’t say. I’ve seen 12 year olds that can barely walk a rocky riverbed because they haven’t done anything like that before, all the way down to a six year old that trad climbs…
> I totally agree that we cannot and should not make trails completely > fool proof. The problem with trying ot create a foolproof system is > that fools are so danged ingenious.
Yep, as soon as you make something idiot proof, someone comes along and invents a better idiot.
> But there are places where is makes sense.
Certain levels of safety are definitely required. However, knowing your limits, staying within those limits, and using your mind are the best options. The mountain/canyon/etc isn’t going anywhere. You can always come back and do it another time…
Thanks > Glenn
Take care, A.J. >
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote: > What exists already is a sort of via ferrata. Could it be used with > a harness and tether for my nine yr old? I’ll get to see it in > person in a couple of weeks. I’ll let you know.
Hmmm…there’s more to doing via ferrata and folks using just a harness and tether do NOT have the appropriate gear (but, it is done, seen it).
Half Dome isn’t a via ferrata route. I’d say if you can’t do it quickly and efficiently, then, you shouldn’t do it. Anything else puts both you and other folks at risk.
> I totally agree that we cannot and should not make trails completely > fool proof. The problem with trying ot create a foolproof system is > that fools are so danged ingenious.
See above about a 9 year old, harness and tether…
> But there are places where is makes sense.
And places where it makes sense to wait until you have the skill, judgement, strength, etc.
-Brian in SLC
From the NPS websit:
Half Dome Cables
The most famous–or infamous–part of the hike is the ascent up the cables. The two metal cables allow hikers to climb the last 400 feet to the summit without rock climbing equipment. Since 1919, only a few people have fallen and even fewer have died. However, injuries are not uncommon for those acting irresponsibly.
kg6jdf
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “A.J.” wrote: While I feel that > making the route a via ferrata may increase the safety from a fall a > small amount; I don’t think that it would increase it > significantly. The current cables are pretty secure. I think the > safety issue comes down to attitude and crowding.
Now here is an explanation I can relate to. Thanks AJ.
I will conclude that a conventional via ferrata could be potentially safer, but no so much that it would be worth it.
What exists already is a sort of via ferrata. Could it be used with a harness and tether for my nine yr old? I’ll get to see it in person in a couple of weeks. I’ll let you know.
I totally agree that we cannot and should not make trails completely fool proof. The problem with trying ot create a foolproof system is that fools are so danged ingenious.
But there are places where is makes sense.
Thanks Glenn
JoeB
Maybe I’ll get flamed for saying this publicly, but I have personally heard conflicting accounts from different people who were there. Viewpoints and truth are relative (not absolute) and so is one’s view of “safety” or “goofing around.” The newspaper got its info from somebody who was quite convinced of what he saw and he wasn’t the only one. But I’m sure that other witnesses and family have very different opinions about what actually happened. It’s all seen from an individual’s limited point of view.
In any case, a knee-jerk reaction to put chains, fences, guardrails, warning signs, and safety netting by every single edge would be a horrible overreaction. Like others, I don’t think it would actually buy any more real “safety.”
Since Emerald Pools has seen more fatalities (according to the NPS website), one could consider that the more dangerous hike. And over the past 30 years, I have seen more and more poles, fences and signs turn that trail into something more akin to a line at an amusement park. -Joe
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “A.J.” wrote: > I think the
safety issue comes down to attitude and crowding. By attitude, the
reports say those hikers were joking around on the ascent. I wasn’t
there, nor do I say that I haven’t joked around on climbs; but I’ve
always kept a respect for anything with exposure and risk.
As was reported first hand by a family member, on another forum, the > newspaper report of “goofing around” was an error and one that caused > a lot of hurt to the family. Sad stuff for sure on many levels. > R >
Charly Oliver
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote: But it still seems to me a reasonable idea to make common and popular areas reasonable safe for the masses.”
I was in Zion two weekends ago with a group of people from Tennessee. They repeatedly commented on how: “If this was a park back east, there would be paved trails and guard rails everywhere.” These folks really appreciated the fact that our western parks are less regulated and do not attempt to make things safe for everyone.
We saw a group of teenagers at Observation Point goofing around near the edge. One guy even had his girlfriend sit on his shoulders for a picture…
Sadly, it’s pretty hard to tell someone who doesn’t want to hear it, that a particular route is over their head. Warnings go repeatedly unheeded. I think the problem with your comment above is that no matter how safe you try to make life, there’s always a chance you will get spanked.
I just wish people would consider things a little more realistically and not let their ego’s get in the way before taking on a challenge that is more of a stretch than what they are used to.
Charly
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “A.J.” wrote: I think the > safety issue comes down to attitude and crowding. By attitude, the > reports say those hikers were joking around on the ascent. I wasn’t > there, nor do I say that I haven’t joked around on climbs; but I’ve > always kept a respect for anything with exposure and risk.
As was reported first hand by a family member, on another forum, the newspaper report of “goofing around” was an error and one that caused a lot of hurt to the family. Sad stuff for sure on many levels. R
A.J.
Having done half-dome many times, and having experienced some via ferrata routes in Europe, I’ll give my opinion. While I feel that making the route a via ferrata may increase the safety from a fall a small amount; I don’t think that it would increase it significantly. The current cables are pretty secure. I think the safety issue comes down to attitude and crowding. By attitude, the reports say those hikers were joking around on the ascent. I wasn’t there, nor do I say that I haven’t joked around on climbs; but I’ve always kept a respect for anything with exposure and risk. I’ve also got a little bit of a climbing background; and wonder what the person who fell had for experience with respect to climbing? Whether it’s cables or via ferrata, complacent people can still make a mistake and die.
As for crowding, the half dome incident happened on a very busy day. Changing to a via ferrata (VF) could significantly lengthen the ascent/descent times; which would add other dangers (lightning comes to mind), as well as making it even tougher to get around slower folks. If we are going to try to dumb it down even more; I’d suggest putting in a second set of cables (or VF) for the people heading down. Passing on those cables can be interesting. I’ve come across many people holding both cables on the way up and down, not allowing passing and blocking progress…
Personally, I’ve climbed that route in the summer and winter without the cables, and would love to see them removed completely. Let the people who are capable reach the summit. Others can do other trails in the park; including Clouds Rest; near Half Dome for a less exposed climb/view. People can take a mostly paved trail up to Yosemite Falls, and many other trails in the park. Many other trails don’t have as much exposure or risk. (Though I do recognize that the other trails would be even more crowded without the half dome route accessible.)
I’ve started to avoid the valley now in all but the winter time; too many people for me. As the number of people increase, statistically, people will have accidents whether it’s VF, cables, etc. The angel’s landing incident happened because someone got too close to the edge and the rock broke free. Had nothing to do with the chains/steep exposed ascent.
Where do we stop trying to protect people from themselves? There are people that were insisting we put handrails on ALL of the trails in parks. What an unnecessary and unsightly blemish that would be. Would that be safer? Sure. Would it be practical? No. Right? No. Downright ugly? Yep. Would it be better in the long run? Definitely not. I think it would increase problems.
I think the solution is for people to realize what thier ability level is, and do what they are ready for. There are plenty of information booklets and signs already for both Half Dome and Angels Landing warning of the dangers. People shouldn’t hop off the sofa, brush off the potato chip crumbs, and decide to go hike half dome. If they go well above thier level, then that’s life, and thier choice. We are free to make good or bad choices. Accept responsibility for your choices. Thus, make smart ones to begin with; prior to wanting the world to cater to your experience level.
Making it safer could also induce more lawsuits. How? With Via Ferrata, it should open the route up to even more people, right? Say someone mis-clips and falls. Now, since it’s even safer, the park should be liable, right? Just leads the way to more stupid lawsuits. Like the kids that were trying to carve thier initials in Angel’s Landing (daring each other to see who could lean over the ledge farther to do it.) One falls. Sad, but stupid. The family is suing the park. Incredible. If I was the judge, I’d say sorry your child fell, but you should have stopped them when you had the chance. And then fine them for vandalism of the park. Harsh, but when do the frivolous lawsuits stop from people doing stupid things?
I’m ranting now, so I’ll pass the soapbox to another… A.J.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Tom. May I dig a little deeper into your > reasoning? > I agree that some of these places are inherently dangerous because > they are very high and very exposed. That needs to be a risk we > understand and are willing to take.
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote: > The NPS just does > not require the technical gear to do it properly.
Does anybody have any exprience on via ferrata in Europe? Are these > trails less exposed?
I’ve done only one via ferrata in Italy, on the Tofana di Rozes.
To my knowledge, Europe doesn’t “require” proper gear on those routes either. And, you see all manners of folks using all manners of gear on them, some quite unsafe. Some do via ferratas without any gear at all.
And, just because a route is a via ferrata, doesn’t mean that someone won’t get killed on it. A gal died at Nelson in West Virginia last year or so. I think when you start focusing on the technical equipment, sometimes you lose sight of what really provides your safety.
The Angels Landing trail has only mild improvements to aid the, what, average hiker? And there’s plenty of spots near the trail that a stumble or a slip would be very fatal (spectacularly even) that aren’t “protected”.
I’ll have to say, after climbing the Snake Dike on Half Dome, that coming down the cables sort of scared and amazed me. That’s one wild rig! Kinda blows me away that its a tourist trail, and, that hundreds of folks que up for it every day in the height of tourist season.
That said, it has to be up to folks to be responsible for their own well being out there. I’d hate to see signs on the edge of every precipice warning of a steep drop, guard rails on all exposed locations, etc etc. Personal responsibility.
-Brian in SLC
matt maxon
1st time poster here too…
I agree totally with Tom on this one…
I do however think people should be made aware this isn’t Disneyland and if you put yourself in danger knowingly or un-knowingly you can be killed or very seriously injured.
In the park newspaper…. “People plummet to their deaths every year, stay back from the edge” Yada Yada Yada. “Loose, natural unpredictable surfaces” use at your own risk, “Be careful”.
I guess what I’m am trying to say is is it’s not the danger you know, but the danger you don’t know.
Being trained Canyoneers we are very aware of the danger and conduct ourselves accordingly. Looking back on some of the insane things I have done in the past due to a lack of knowledge makes me cringe. And paid dearly once for the lack of it.
I have told my son as he has gotten interested in this sport, “your fear is a good thing, use it, it will keep you alive”. But don’t let it paralyze you.
Sorry for the rant….
C-Ya! Canyon Kelp “So many canyons… So little time”
Tom Jones wrote:
Welcome Glenn, and thanks for posting your thoughts (though I am, of > course, going to disagree with you).
I’ve followed the message board at the Fresno Bee somewhat following > the Half Dome death. Interesting and sad. Both the event was sad, > and the understanding of how “the natural world” works.
One of the beauties of the natural world, and recreating in the > natural world, is that things have true consequences, and there is > no appeal. There are places in this world where if you slip and > fall, you might fall a long way and die. Such is the case on Half > Dome, and such is the case on Angels Landing.
Are these places “dangerous”? Yes, in the sense that if you slip > and fall in the wrong spot, you will die. No, if you look at the > statistics: literally 10s of thousands of people make the ascents > every year without mishap. A few each year, at most, have mishap.
Can we make the world safe for everyone, all the time? Should we? > My answer is an emphatic NO! to both questions.
Two weeks ago, we lost one of our friends, a canyoneer named Keith > who was pretty experienced. After a very long day and in the dark, > he rigged his rappel incorrectly, and fell to his death. It is sad, > and we are reminded that what we do has serious consequences, and > that the specific mistake he made is one we should be aware of and > be sure to avoid. But closing the canyon, or installing lights on > the last rappel station, or the park supplying fixed lines are not > alternatives that would find an audience among canyoneers. In the > wild places, if people screw up they can die. It is part of the > wildness of it.
Thank you, Glenn, for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Other viewpoints?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , > “kg6jdf” wrote:
I am very new to this community and this is my first post (so go
easy on me).
You all know of the recent fatal fall from Angels Landing. There
was a similar tragedy on the Half Dome cables in Yosemite last > week
(see this link for details and discussion:
> http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/N
umber/36486/page/1#Post36486 )
This has me thinking about via ferrata. Would it not make sense > to
convert the cabling systems in these kinds of trails to a via
ferrata and require the use of harnesses and slings? On these
trails where there are already cables/chains it would not be the
same as bolting up a pristine environment, just an improvement of
the system.
Are there other trails that require infrastructure like this to
maintain the illusion of safety?
Glenn
Tom Jones
Hey, discussion is what this group is all about. Even better if it is polite!
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Tom. May I dig a little deeper into your > reasoning? > I agree that some of these places are inherently dangerous because > they are very high and very exposed. That needs to be a risk we > understand and are willing to take.
I also can see the point of not wanting to install all kinds of > hardware where it does not already exist. But it still seems to > me a reasonable idea to make common and popular areas reasonable > safe for the masses. Presumably that is why they put up the chain > and cable systems.
** The area already IS reasonably safe for the masses. Adding Via Ferrata capability, I posit, would not make it any safer; you would still have people stumbling when not clipped in, or goofing around at the summit, or ??? It would change the available safety options, but the current options are statistically very safe, therefore it would not make it truly “safer”.
But I agree that we cannot make some of these places totally safe, > and we would not want to. But these places have been made “safe” > enough that people with no technical climbing experience can get > there, where they could not otherwise. It looks to me like these > two trails are in essesce via ferrata already. The NPS just does > not require the technical gear to do it properly.
Does anybody have any exprience on via ferrata in Europe? Are > these trails less exposed?
** Via Ferratas in Europe are WAY more exposed. Also, in Europe, the govt does not REQUIRE people to use safety equipment. In America, it would be impractical for the govt to REQUIRE the use of Via Ferrata equipment, and in essence, the public would go “Via What???”
For example, specific safety equipment is not required for the climb of Moonlight Buttress in Zion. The public is welcome to attempt the climb in any manner they wish (except using power equipment). Isn’t this dangerous? Well, no. No one has died on Moonlight Buttress, and deaths on climbing routes are rare.
There was a similar, but harder ‘chained climbing route’ on Lady Mountain in Zion, but the chains and hardware were removed in the early 60’s because the trail was too problematic. My understanding is that people “froze” on the route, and rangers had to regularly go up there and escort people back to the ground.
The park COULD close the Angel’s Landing Trail, but the public would strenuously object. The other alternative would be for the park to make the trail “fully safe”, which to me means enclosing it in a wire mesh cage, and putting inpenetrable railings around the top, so it would be physically impossible for people to fall off. They still would, though.
Tom
Tom
kg6jdf
Thanks for your reply, Tom. May I dig a little deeper into your reasoning? I agree that some of these places are inherently dangerous because they are very high and very exposed. That needs to be a risk we understand and are willing to take.
I also can see the point of not wanting to install all kinds of hardware where it does not already exist. But it still seems to me a reasonable idea to make common and popular areas reasonable safe for the masses. Presumably that is why they put up the chain and cable systems.
But I agree that we cannot make some of these places totally safe, and we would not want to. But these places have been made “safe” enough that people with no technical climbing experience can get there, where they could not otherwise. It looks to me like these two trails are in essesce via ferrata already. The NPS just does not require the technical gear to do it properly.
Does anybody have any exprience on via ferrata in Europe? Are these trails less exposed?
Thanks for allowing me space to disagree at least a little bit.
Glenn
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
Welcome Glenn, and thanks for posting your thoughts (though I am, of > course, going to disagree with you).
I’ve followed the message board at the Fresno Bee somewhat following > the Half Dome death. Interesting and sad. Both the event was sad, > and the understanding of how “the natural world” works.
One of the beauties of the natural world, and recreating in the > natural world, is that things have true consequences, and there is > no appeal. There are places in this world where if you slip and > fall, you might fall a long way and die. Such is the case on Half > Dome, and such is the case on Angels Landing.
Are these places “dangerous”? Yes, in the sense that if you slip > and fall in the wrong spot, you will die. No, if you look at the > statistics: literally 10s of thousands of people make the ascents > every year without mishap. A few each year, at most, have mishap.
Can we make the world safe for everyone, all the time? Should we? > My answer is an emphatic NO! to both questions.
Two weeks ago, we lost one of our friends, a canyoneer named Keith > who was pretty experienced. After a very long day and in the dark, > he rigged his rappel incorrectly, and fell to his death. It is sad, > and we are reminded that what we do has serious consequences, and > that the specific mistake he made is one we should be aware of and > be sure to avoid. But closing the canyon, or installing lights on > the last rappel station, or the park supplying fixed lines are not > alternatives that would find an audience among canyoneers. In the > wild places, if people screw up they can die. It is part of the > wildness of it.
Thank you, Glenn, for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Other viewpoints?
Tom
> — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote:
I am very new to this community and this is my first post (so go
easy on me).
You all know of the recent fatal fall from Angels Landing. There
was a similar tragedy on the Half Dome cables in Yosemite last > week
(see this link for details and discussion:
> http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/N
> umber/36486/page/1#Post36486 )
This has me thinking about via ferrata. Would it not make sense > to
convert the cabling systems in these kinds of trails to a via
ferrata and require the use of harnesses and slings? On these
trails where there are already cables/chains it would not be the
same as bolting up a pristine environment, just an improvement of
the system.
Are there other trails that require infrastructure like this to
maintain the illusion of safety?
Glenn
>
Tom Jones
Welcome Glenn, and thanks for posting your thoughts (though I am, of course, going to disagree with you).
I’ve followed the message board at the Fresno Bee somewhat following the Half Dome death. Interesting and sad. Both the event was sad, and the understanding of how “the natural world” works.
One of the beauties of the natural world, and recreating in the natural world, is that things have true consequences, and there is no appeal. There are places in this world where if you slip and fall, you might fall a long way and die. Such is the case on Half Dome, and such is the case on Angels Landing.
Are these places “dangerous”? Yes, in the sense that if you slip and fall in the wrong spot, you will die. No, if you look at the statistics: literally 10s of thousands of people make the ascents every year without mishap. A few each year, at most, have mishap.
Can we make the world safe for everyone, all the time? Should we? My answer is an emphatic NO! to both questions.
Two weeks ago, we lost one of our friends, a canyoneer named Keith who was pretty experienced. After a very long day and in the dark, he rigged his rappel incorrectly, and fell to his death. It is sad, and we are reminded that what we do has serious consequences, and that the specific mistake he made is one we should be aware of and be sure to avoid. But closing the canyon, or installing lights on the last rappel station, or the park supplying fixed lines are not alternatives that would find an audience among canyoneers. In the wild places, if people screw up they can die. It is part of the wildness of it.
Thank you, Glenn, for the opportunity to express these thoughts.
Other viewpoints?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “kg6jdf” wrote:
I am very new to this community and this is my first post (so go > easy on me).
You all know of the recent fatal fall from Angels Landing. There > was a similar tragedy on the Half Dome cables in Yosemite last week > (see this link for details and discussion: > http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/N
umber/36486/page/1#Post36486 )
This has me thinking about via ferrata. Would it not make sense to > convert the cabling systems in these kinds of trails to a via > ferrata and require the use of harnesses and slings? On these > trails where there are already cables/chains it would not be the > same as bolting up a pristine environment, just an improvement of > the system.
Are there other trails that require infrastructure like this to > maintain the illusion of safety?
Glenn >